The last time I tried that it got shunted here. Figured I’d cut out the middle-mod.
Really? I stand corrected.
Can we blacklist these fuckheads from all medical treatments derived from animal testing? We’ll see how firm their convictions are when they’re treating their cancers with hemp juice. Hell, in the spirit of the article, let’s blacklist their kids as well.
…in the minds of morons like you.
I’m laughing alright, but it’s not at your link.
That really doesn’t go far enough, because extremists not only don’t want to benefit from animal testing themselves, they don’t want anyone else to benefit from it either.
Who gives a shit about that risk? I mean, they’re risking some nutjob on the Internet grouping them with another nutjob on the Internet in a nutjob thread on the Internet. OH NOES! I can do the same thing: I’m gonna group the American Kennel Club with Michael Vick, because both of them raise dogs. Or I’m gonna group UNC-CH with Dr. Mengele, because both of them perform medical experiments.
It’s a really stupid game, notwithstanding how easy it is to play.
That is something you cannot really do. You may think that holding the same wrong headed ideas but not approving of violence and illegal activities means that it is possible to support animal “rights” without getting dirty, but it isn’t. If nothing else, those of us who love animals and wish to be able to continue to interact with them in our homes are not going to give up those (real) rights up without a fight.
Please keep your politics out of my home. “Protect all dogs; spay/neuter and debark all politicians”.
You’re an idiot.
That is how you bring folks over to your side of political belief? 
I’m sorry, whether I am an idiot or not, the fact remains that animals do not, and definitely should not, have “rights”. And certainly not ones that supercede the rights of humans.
Therefore, at best, you are being mislead.
OTOH, I tend to think that anyone who believes the crap that the animal “rightists” spew has to be a special sort of numb nuts…
Do you even know what her ideas about animal rights are? Until you do or can produce evidence of her beliefs, castigating her just makes you look like a histrionic dolt.
Unless she has ideas that do not follow what most everyone else considers to be the “rights that animals should have”, yes I do. Decades of having to deal with these twits has given me a fairly strong idea of what any individual person who makes claims like this wants and believes.
Ok, so what do you think she believes? I’d like to know so I can be outraged with you.
Are you serious? You have no idea what those who believe in animal “rights” want?
I have my own ideas. I’d like to know yours.
I’m not interested in bringing you to my “side.” You’ve demonstrated plenty of times on this board that your side is one that most rational people shy away from on most occasions. My own position on animal rights is actually irrelevant to you being an idiot.
You’re an idiot because you say that anyone who believes in animal rights cannot distance themselves from the position of violent extremists. This is, whether applied to animal rights or any other political position, a completely untenable argument which would, by extension, make everyone responsible by association for anything that the most extreme members of society choose to do.
You’ve argued on this board that you don’t want to pay taxes to help people raise their kids. That means that, whether you like it or not, you condone and can be associated with child murder and child neglect.
Sorry, not going to play that game. There are plenty of sites on the internet for you to find out what animal “rights” folks want and believe.
You have just proven that you really don’t have a clue. Not all political positions involve taking rights from humans in order to, for some bizarre reason, try to pretend that animals are the same thing as humans and therefore should be treated exactly the same. (As an aside - this is not what the leaders of PETA and ALF believe, but it is what they pretend to believe and how they get regular folks to support them.) Anyway, when you try to take rights away from people, the reaction is rarely peaceful not to mention the means being used to deny those rights.
As I said, I’ve spent decades dealing with people who believe in animal “rights” and I have yet to find one person or one position that is based in fact, science or anything other than misguided emotions.
I could be. However, I was not involved in the decisions to have, keep and raise a child(ren) in conditions that require them being raised on the taxpayer, which are far from ideal. So there are quite a few folks that are far more responsible for that murder and neglect charge than I, such as those that think that all women who become pregnant and decide to keep the baby should be allowed to do so no matter what their past history or current situation is.
However, that is off topic and probably just a way for you to try to deflect attention from your wrong headed beliefs about animals.
I don’t want to know what animal rights people believe. I want to know what you believe they believe.
But what “fact” or “science” would convince you?
I can’t think of a “fact” of “science” based argument that i would find very compelling for the idea of human rights, either.
While i firmly believe in human rights both in a general sense, and in terms of specific rights (speech, religion, etc.), and i’m well aware of historical arguments about natural rights that claim the inherency of these thing, none of them are really based on any sort of objective “fact” or “science.”
Rights are, in a very real sense, human constructs. That doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or unreal, they don’t have existence outside our understanding of them.
To be honest, while i’m an atheist, to me about the only objectively compelling argument that humans have rights and animals don’t have rights would come from someone who bases his ideas upon religious conviction. If you believe in the Bible, and the idea that God chose man to rule over other creatures, the notion of humans having rights and animals not having rights had at least internal coherence.
The question, “What does curlcoat think?” is, I believe, a species of Zen koan, like “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” It is a question that cannot be answered, indeed, is not intended to be answered, because the situation it describes involves some fundamental logical impossibility. The inherent contradiction thus generated is intended to guide the student past the confines of logical thought, and into the realm of non-rational intuition, and so one stepper closer to Nirvana. Thus, there is Buddha nature even in one such as curlcoat, where one can find the unconscious, effortless imitation of the sort of anti-logical unthought seen only in the most enlightened of Zen masters, or the most debilitated of stroke victims.
“Om mani padme hum… Om mani padme hum…”
<lights incense>
As for the OP:
I wouldn’t worry too much about the fringe nutter that started that site. I love this “constructive criticism” they received from some helpful fellow: